Confusion and the Role of Intuitions in the Debate on the Conception of the Right to Privacy

Björn Lundgren

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

Abstract

Recently, Jakob Thraine Mainz and Rasmus Uhrenfeldt defended a control-based conception of a moral right to privacy (Mainz and Uhrenfeldt, Res Publica, 2020)—focusing on conceptualizing necessary and jointly sufficient conditions for a privacy right violation. This reply comments on a number of mistakes they make, which have long reverberated through the debate on the conceptions of privacy and the right to privacy and therefore deserve to be corrected. Moreover, the reply provides a sketch of a general response for defending the limited access conception of the right to privacy against control-based intuitions.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)669-674
JournalRes Publica
Volume27
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Nov 2021

Keywords

  • Privacy
  • Right to privacy
  • Control
  • Limited access

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Confusion and the Role of Intuitions in the Debate on the Conception of the Right to Privacy'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this